Hopefully I’ve worded the question right.
I was once told (I could never verify if it was true) that a crocs company once almost went bankrupt after they made their crocs practically indestructible. Whilst the story was most likely bullshit, it makes me wonder: if a company can make a product that is practically indestructible, is it ethical for them not to make them indestructible, so people will buy more from them?
The way I look at it is, on one hand, I feel like they should make products to the highest quality if they can so that the consumer has to spend less money and that less is wasted, but at the same time if it leads to the company going bankrupt, what of the workers and their families? So I can’t decide, what do you think?
I’ll be honest, I didn’t even think of that point. Thanks for sharing, interesting perspective.
It’s also untrue, see my other statement.
In many cases, especially technology and machinery, extra effort is put into making sure they break down on time, just out of warranty. They’d be arguably cheaper without that extra effort.
Not too long ago, TVs were so expensive that most people rented them.
This might depend on where you live? I don’t remember seeing any sort of rental TV services in any area I’ve lived in or any advertisements for such. I’ll be honest, I wasn’t looking for one, but I also haven’t heard of this as a common thing.